Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2008-07-15 12:10, Andi Kleen wrote:
>Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> So if the version were to be date-based, instead of releasing 2.6.26, 
>> maybe we could have 2008.7 instead. Or just increment the major version 
>> every decade, the middle version every year, and the minor version every 
>> time we make a release. Whatever.
>
>Or you could just do it like emacs or Solaris and simply use a single number.

And both emacs and Solaris already have high numbers.
For the former that's probably warranted given its long existence.
Solaris, hm no, but the "SunOS 5.11" tag on the other hand,
is quite "acceptable".

Big numbers tend to be forgotten. Do you know offhand what the latest
MSOffice is? emacs? udev? less? I doubt you do.
My intuitive answers were:
12, 22, "somewhere in the 100s", "somewhere in the 400s".
Reality? I had to look up the last two.
12(.with.an.oodle.of.digits), 22.2, 124, 418/424(beta).
Maybe Linux would be different because you see the version on
some login prompts, dmesg, or similar.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/